He missed the part about manufacturers doing this under the guise of fuel savings because it actually costs them less to make turbo fours than larger V engines.
I mean, everything he says is correct, but I don't think Jason's ever been a fan of turbos and this comes off a bit like rhetoric to me. Most people spend more time getting where they're going than hooning, and turbos still give them the on-ramp power they want. Moreover, advances like water-cooled integrated exhaust manifolds have done a lot to curb the super-rich high boost fuel burn; I think we'll see more of that moving forward.
Last edited by ghost03; 11-19-2019 at 01:31 PM.
The crazy thing is, direct injection helps so much with turbo MPG. IIRC a 930 would barely do double digits on the street.
And I'm watching my waist this holiday season. Starting early on my summer bod!
A turbo 4 gets about the equivalent mileage to a NA V6 in my driving experience. Strap the turbo to a diesel, and it looks completely different. I normally get 5-10% worse FE compared to EPA ratings in gasoline cars (5% for NA, 10% for turbo), but 10-20% better FE in turbo diesels.
My 1.8T was 180HP stock, my 325i is 189HP, so it's close. Driving the MkIV hard I was able to consistently get the MPG into the very low double digits, 12-13MPG. I can't get my 325i anywhere close to that, lowest I've seen is 16-18.
Here's where I stand. I drive a TDI, had a V6 Passat, had a 1.8T Passat. The V6 Passat had similar mileage to the 1.8T that was down to variances in the route/drafting/how fast I was able to go/ect.
A smaller engine will sip less flue at cruising speeds. Around town, it's all dependent on how you drive.
If you care about FE, change how you drive first. I have a 2011 TDI, I can get 52mpg highway, or 42mpg. I can get 46mpg city/mixed or I can get 38. It's all about how much I'm screwing around.
EDIT: Should add that my 1.8T Passat was auto compared to the manual V6 Passat which has much taller gearing than the auto 1.8T, which would support the idea that a FI low displacement engine is better for FE.
Last edited by Colty_CM; 11-19-2019 at 02:01 PM.
2011 Golf TDI 2 Door 6MT - 164k - Things wrong 0 -
1997 Golf 5MT 4 Door - Things wrong - A lot - (project)
GF's 2008 Rabbit 4 door Tiptronic - 187k - Things wrong 2 - Blower Motor (for first few seconds) and SAI - not bad
The justification for downsized turbos (IMO) is most buyers are not beating on them non-stop. Using Fuelly as a real world resource the typical downsized turbo vehicle is seeing average MPG improvements vs old generation V6 models.
Last edited by 2.0T_Convert; 11-19-2019 at 01:57 PM.
At any rate, even on a track day I typically have a 1-3 hr 'commute' to the track. The two times I've had the 982 to Lime Rock so far, I've done about 30-31 from Syracuse to Lakeville, 5-6 at LRP, and 29-30 on the way home (Eastbound vs Westbound). It averages out to about 18mpg for the day, which can't be far off what a 3.4L Cayman would do if you count the commute.
I didn't get to watch the video, but I think it takes x amount of fuel to make x amount of hp.
Here is two real world examples. Same driver. Same driving habits. Same location.
2009 Mazda 65 3.7 V6 Automatic, 3600ish lbs, 272hp, 269lb-ft 35000kms
2018 Cadillac ATS 2.0T, DI, 6MT, 3400ish lbs, 272hp, 295lb-ft 140000kms
The Mazda was heavier(6%) and did not have the torque advantage, or fuel savings of Direct Injection that the Cadillac has, yet still is within 12% of the fuel economy.
I think this shows that it would be very close in a more controlled experiment.
Im always a fan of NA over FI ... that being said, his science is wrong here, and his example of the boxster/cayman is a poor one. he also is leaving out the fact that NA engines need to run rich as well when you push them, and that that isn't even a useful comparison in the first place.
im far more a fan of NA for reliability, drivablity, and coolant system reasons, not power or efficiency reasons.
I would also add that comparing based on peak power isn't right - the comparison should be based on average torque in the low to midrange. Compare that way and turbo engines look even better, and since 99% of driving in the public real world is in the low to midrange RPMs, that's what matters.